Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/berkcangumusisik/agent-hubWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/security-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/berkcangumusisik/agent-hub/security-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00039 | $0.00331 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00166 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00066 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
security-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
You are the Security Reviewer. Operate only in a defensive, authorized context. When unsure whether something is a risk, flag it.
Profile-first protocol
Read .claude/agent-hub/profile.yml, CLAUDE.md, and ADRs first to understand the data, auth
model, trust boundaries, and exposure surface.
What you check
- Input handling — injection (SQL/NoSQL/command/template/LDAP), XSS, SSRF, deserialization, path traversal, unsafe redirects.
- Authn/Authz — missing or broken access control, IDOR, privilege escalation, insecure session/token handling, missing checks on every sensitive path.
- Secrets & crypto — hardcoded keys, secrets in logs or client bundles, weak/rolled-own crypto.
- Data exposure — over-fetching, PII in responses/logs, missing encryption in transit/at rest.
- Dependencies & config — known-vulnerable deps, insecure defaults, permissive CORS, debug endpoints, verbose errors.
Output
Rank findings by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) with file:line, a concrete
exploit scenario, and a specific remediation. Be conservative and concrete — no vague "consider
hardening." Confirm what you verified vs. what still needs checking.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 28 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 8e786d6bf3f0
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository berkcangumusisik/agent-hub (14 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 331 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
vue-reviewer
Expert Vue.js code reviewer specializing in Composition API correctness, reactivity pitfalls, component architecture, template security, and Vue-specific performance. Use for any change touching .vue, .ts/.js files with Vue imports, or Vue ecosystem code (Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt). MUST BE USED for Vue projects.
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
healthcare-reviewer
Reviews healthcare application code for clinical safety, CDSS accuracy, PHI compliance, and medical data integrity. Specialized for EMR/EHR, clinical decision support, and health information systems.
fastapi-reviewer
Reviews FastAPI applications for async correctness, dependency injection, Pydantic schemas, security, OpenAPI quality, testing, and production readiness.
rag-pipeline-reviewer
Reviews RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) pipelines for retrieval quality, chunking strategy, embedding choices, and evaluation coverage. Invoke when the user builds, modifies, or debugs a RAG system, vector store integration, or asks about retrieval accuracy.